Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 257 posts

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#231

Post by fnordpiglet »

ptero wrote: post #94

While not specific to chipmaking, Lyn Alden's latest public newsletter on reshoring is, as always, excellent: https://www.lynalden.com/reshoring/ The relevant point is that while the manufacturing portion is real, successful reshoring also requires skilled labor. Skilled labor for fab production is not something US has now and it takes many years to grow; and it is not clear if the US has the desire and the will to f…

An easy solution to that is open up skilled worker programs. Importing talent is something the US is generally excellent at, offering a much more dynamic culture, better quality of life, better compensation than most manufacturing hubs and having a sizable ethnic community for most cultures wherever skilled labor is needed. While not universally true by any measure enough people want permanent residency in the US that you could staff almost any nascent industry. Further funding to public universities could establish programs and import professors. Once you’ve seeded the industry mentorship, education, and opportunity fosters a domestic talent pool. Sadly these days nativism is the popular politic.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#232

Post by bagacrap »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #82
bagacrap wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't mean to alarm you but Texas is a coastal state

But Texas is also the size of the four states to its east. Georgia is a coastal state. If you pull from Brunswick, GA and send it to just outside St. Louis, that distance is covered within the single state of Texas. That said, we don't pull sea water to supply water for industry - desalination is too costly.

Coastal states also get a lot of rain.

We aren't talking about building fabs way out in Abilene are we?

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#233

Post by mikewarot »

c_o_n_v_e_x wrote: post #223

What's the end goal here? To onshore only chip production to the US? Or are we talking about onshoring entire electronics supply chains? How about all the other stuff that's required besides the dies themselves... chip substrates? packaging? Passive components? Onshore PCB manufacturers (that are actually affordable)? We build 10 to 12 layer boards with BGA x86 CPUs. There's a MASSIVE premium on trying to have comple…

I have similar concerns. If you can't source all the discrete components, PCBs, solder, masks, connectors, general hardware (nuts bolts, screws, etc), you're still dependent on a world wide supply chain.

For both Digikey and Mouser, there's no way to even see or filter for Country of origin.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#234

Post by robertlagrant »

asow92 wrote: post #145
robertlagrant wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's something new, perhaps: some things are much easier to learn than others.

Obviously, but that doesn't change my mind here. If you're in the 1% of top performers, you have the cognitive ability to learn new things.

> Obviously, but that doesn't change my mind here.

> If you're in the 1% of top performers, you have the cognitive ability to learn new things.

I had to stop and admire the subtle self-deprecating humour on display between those two statements. Well played!

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#235

Post by robertlagrant »

walleeee wrote: post #168
robertlagrant wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's capitalism's fault for valuing workers only for the cost of their labor and nothing else. Sigh. The value you're talking about here is the cost of their labour. This is like a business owner saying that employees should value their jobs differently to their salary. You're right in the sense that capitalism is fundamentally "people make agreements and decisions within what's available to them" but what's the ac…

> what's the actual issue you want capitalism to solve Seeing as it's more or less the de facto world order it should ideally solve global alignment for the long term wellbeing of Earth-borne life

The difference is capitalism is bottom up. It has no top-downness, and would rather individual people and groups of people made agreements between themselves. That's why it can never usefully be described as a "world order".

That doesn't align well with efficiency or top-down world political agreements. But it has lifted more people out of poverty faster than any other system in history.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#236

Post by frognumber »

slingnow wrote: post #167
frognumber wrote: post #67

My question: As an American, why should I work in IC fabrication? I'm competing with low-cost Asians who set a cap on my salary. Work conditions, income, and everything else is worse than SWE. I switched away from electronics early in my career, and it seems like a strict win. As much as I believe in on-shoring, I'm not sure those issues can, will, or should be fixed.

You're right. Why should any American ever work in any job that doesn't favorably compare to SWE salary and working conditions? Everyone should quit their jobs and become a SWE. It's just that simple, right? /s

Because a janitor does not know how to SWE? And a CEO makes more? And a teacher has meaningful work?

On the other hand, EEs either can SWE or can learn quickly, and switching seems like a win in all respects, unless you have a bunny suit kink or something.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#237

Post by frognumber »

kakwa_ wrote: post #115
frognumber wrote: post #67

My question: As an American, why should I work in IC fabrication? I'm competing with low-cost Asians who set a cap on my salary. Work conditions, income, and everything else is worse than SWE. I switched away from electronics early in my career, and it seems like a strict win. As much as I believe in on-shoring, I'm not sure those issues can, will, or should be fixed.

For the "can" part, looking at the numbers, it looks possible. If I take TSMC, they have: * $73b revenue * $32b income * 73000 employees (2022 numbers from wikipedia) That's a really high margin, and a really high revenue per employee. This means there is probably room to accommodate for higher wages. The concern I have revolves more around the US work culture. Employees tend to switch company frequently. Given how c…

> Employees tend to switch company frequently. Given how critical institutional knowledge is for running these fabs, this is a handicap.

When I've seen people switch firms, the institutional knowledge they brought over was gold.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#238

Post by robertlagrant »

vkou wrote: post #151
robertlagrant wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's capitalism's fault for valuing workers only for the cost of their labor and nothing else. Sigh. The value you're talking about here is the cost of their labour. This is like a business owner saying that employees should value their jobs differently to their salary. You're right in the sense that capitalism is fundamentally "people make agreements and decisions within what's available to them" but what's the ac…

> Monarchy can just also tell you to go die on a field if you don't kill the other king's people. What makes you think that capitalism won't do the same to you? Capitalist[1] societies engage in pointless, bloody wars all the time. [1] And communist, and other -ist.

The society isn't capitalist. The economy is capitalist.

Unlike monarchy/communism/fuedalism etc where power and resource allocation are by necessity mostly centralised, capitalism can (and wants to) be divorced from power, and only do resource allocation. Constant realigning it with power (e.g. regulatory capture) is what corrupts it.

The sort of (limited) power capitalism creates is by creating value in some way: labour, capital, contacts, resources. It's not derived from strength, unlike the other methods.

Of course a government, that is fundamentally derived from strength, and must be, can still fight wars. It can do it much better in fact because its economy was organised by the most efficient manner anyone's ever discovered, and so there's a surplus to tax and an efficient economy to flow requirements through.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#239

Post by robertlagrant »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #178
robertlagrant wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why's that surprising?

Because the Bushs are a family of oil types

"oil types" is a stereotype. Stereotypes don't generate genuine surprises, only surprises compared to the stereotype.

Re: How real is America’s chipmaking renaissance?

#240

Post by gitrog »

robertlagrant wrote: post #238
vkou wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monarchy can just also tell you to go die on a field if you don't kill the other king's people. What makes you think that capitalism won't do the same to you? Capitalist[1] societies engage in pointless, bloody wars all the time. [1] And communist, and other -ist.

The society isn't capitalist. The economy is capitalist. Unlike monarchy/communism/fuedalism etc where power and resource allocation are by necessity mostly centralised, capitalism can (and wants to) be divorced from power, and only do resource allocation. Constant realigning it with power (e.g. regulatory capture) is what corrupts it. The sort of (limited) power capitalism creates is by creating value in some way: l…

Capitalism doesn't have desires outside of those of the people who participate in it that hold the most power. The desire of those people is more power. Not resource allocation as an ends, but as a means to more profit.

It has been shown time and time again that the majority of the powerful players in a Capitalist economy inherited their wealth or opportunities.

Capitalism can only function in an economy if a government allows it by setting up the necessary structures and allowing private property ownership.

Society can certainly be Capitalist by extension of the economy being Capitalist due to policies and strucutes set up by goverments.

Post reply on HN